| Subject: | Not the most secure way of doing... |  
| Summary: | Package rating comment |  
| Messages: | 5 |  
| Author: | troy knapp |  
| Date: | 2011-02-01 20:31:17 |  
| Update: | 2011-02-02 13:05:01 |  
|   |  
 
 | 
 | 
troy knapp rated this package as follows:
| Utility:  | Good | 
| Consistency:  | Sufficient | 
| Examples:  | Good | 
| 
 | 
  troy knapp - 2011-02-01 20:31:17  
Not the most secure way of doing things possible, but provides an easy to implement, and easy to hack solution to get provide a limited amount of security. 
  
  Masees Skenderian - 2011-02-02 03:33:22 -  In reply to message 1 from troy knapp 
Why is this not the most secure way? 
  
  troy knapp - 2011-02-02 03:38:56 -  In reply to message 2 from Masees Skenderian 
SSL is a better solution, but costs $$$. Even if you can reliably confirm the identity of your client on the other end of the connection, you are still vulnerable to packet sniffing etc. 
  
  Masees Skenderian - 2011-02-02 10:01:12 -  In reply to message 3 from troy knapp 
Ohhh i totally agree, i thought you meant there is something wrong with the coding. 
  
  troy knapp - 2011-02-02 13:05:01 -  In reply to message 4 from Masees Skenderian 
No, nothing wrong with the coding. By saying it was easy to hack, I MEANT to say that the code was simple and you could change it easily for your own purposes and incorporate it into a larger security solution. 
 
This script could be beat by an attacker that can spoof their IP address, and knows how to use cURL. It would probably be fine for a message board, for example, but I'd implement a deeper solution for more critical info. 
  
   |